The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Wieseltier vs. "The Bell Curve"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

With the former literary editor of The New Republic, Leon Wieseltier and his formidable Old Testament prophet-meets-Beethoven affect, in the news again, it’s perhaps worth remembering his outraged reaction to The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray in TNR in 1994:

The Lowerers, Leon Wieseltier

Murray and Herrnstein protest that “the fascination with race, I.Q. and genes is misbegotten,” but a few pages later they mutter, about the “environment/genetic debate,” that “the question, of course, is fascinating.” The question, of course, is not fascinating. It is old, dreary and indecent, philosophically shabby and politically ugly. …

The scientism of Murray (I will refer only to him, since he is the principal author of what this magazine has published, and de mortuis nil nisi bonum) is a little quaint.

And it would be kind of silly for Wieseltier to imply that The Bell Curve is anti-Semitic since Herrnstein cowrote it, so Wieseltier gets around that problem by dropping Herrnstein’s name for the rest of his essay and denouncing only Murray. Granted, somebody might make fun of you for such a transparent ploy, but you are Leon Wieseltier so only Bad People would do that.

“The pariah status of intelligence as a construct and I.Q. as its measure,” he writes, “for the past three decades has been a function of political fashion, not science.” As if it were science that drew Murray to the subject! … The occult entity known as “g” is not exactly the sturdy stuff of, say, molecular biology.

Or so I imagine. I am not a scientist. I know nothing about psychometrics. Before Murray, I had never made the acquaintance of “visuospatial abilities” or “the digit span subtest.” I do not doubt that there is such a thing as intelligence, and that there are better and worse methods of measuring it. But Murray’s enterprise collapses, theoretically and morally, long before he gets to his graphs. For the question of the bearing of science on life is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical question. There is not a graph in the world that will explain the place of graphs in the world.

That last line sounds like G.K. Chesterton if he smoked crack.

… I am not suggesting, of course, that Murray is an anti-Semite. Still, when I read, on page 275 of The Bell Curve, that “Jews — specifically, Ashkenazi Jews of European origins — test higher than any other ethnic group,” I am repulsed. I am repulsed not only because I would like to believe that what I will achieve in my life will be owed to myself and not to my group, though I am honored by my membership in my group; but also because there have been many scientistic comparisons of Jews and non-Jews during the past two centuries in which Jews did not “test higher,” and the consequences were catastrophic. What if the conclusions that Murray takes from the study that he calls “Storfer 1990″ had turned out differently? How would he explain my failure to express the limitations of my group? Or would it be more appropriate, in the event of psychometric embarrassment, that I stop pretending and start tailoring?

These are not unintelligent questions.

Yes, they are.

I am, after all, an Ashkenazi Jew of European origins. More to the point, a retreat to tailoring is precisely what Murray would prescribe for a Jew who discovered, as the result of some new “definitive” measurement, that he was a member of the cognitive underclass.

Okaaaay …

Here’s gossip columnist Lloyd Grove’s 1995 Vanity Fair article about Wieseltier:

In literary terms, Wieseltier might be the Jewish, heterosexual answer to Oscar Wilde. It was Wilde, after all, who lamented, “I have put my genius into my life; all I’ve put into my works is my talent”—an observation that would seem to suit Leon Wieseltier. “Why don’t you take it a step further,” he suggests, “and call me the ‘Oscar very Wilde’?”

He’s been at The New Republic since 1982, frequently deploying his considerable influence outside his own section to shape the general content of the magazine. A series of frustrated top editors—whose superior rank on the masthead was no match for Wieseltier’s political muscle—has come and gone. His power flows from Marty Peretz, who lured him down from Harvard, having been dazzled by the young scholar over coffee on the Square.

“He was fluent and learned in almost everything one talked about,” recalls Peretz, who compares Wieseltier to the great Jewish philosopher Spinoza. “He’s pretty unusual in that he’s extremely cerebral and extremely what we used to call ‘hip.’ . . .

 
Hide 76 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. This man appears not to even understand what a bell curve is.

    Don’t tell me his intelligence is verbally high and spatially not-so-much.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Frau Katze
    He insults graphs in general.

    I think he might be good at words but not math.

    I've heard other authors say that including graphs in their books may drastically affect the potential audience.

    The mere sight of a graph will cause some readers to close the book for good.

    I don't think I can write as well as Weiseltier but I find that graphs often explain concepts that you can't understand any other way.
    , @RaceRealist88
    Do tell him that psychological traits aren't normally distributed.

    We revisit a long-held assumption in human resource management, organizational behavior, and industrial and organizational psychology that individual performance follows a Gaussian (normal) distribution. We conducted 5 studies involving 198 samples including 633,263 researchers, entertainers, politicians, and amateur and professional athletes. Results are remarkably consistent across industries, types of jobs, types of performance measures, and time frames and indicate that individual performance is not normally distributed—instead, it follows a Paretian (power law) distribution. Assuming normality of individual performance can lead to misspecified theories and misleading practices. Thus, our results have implications for all theories and applications that directly or indirectly address the performance of individual workers including performance measurement and management, utility analysis in preemployment testing and training and development, personnel selection, leadership, and the prediction of performance, among others.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01239.x/full

    “at many physiological and anatomical levels in the brain, the distribution of numerous parameters is in fact strongly skewed . . . suggesting that skewed . . . distributions are fundamental to structural and functional brain organization. This insight . . . has implications for how we should collect and analyze data.”

    http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v15/n4/abs/nrn3687.html
    , @Stephen R. Diamond
    Understanding the bell curve is not substantially a function of spatio-visual ability.
    These sorts of stupid remarks are annoying.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/wieseltier-vs-the-bell-curve/#comment-2057382
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. SND says:

    A tailor maybe; a barber, never.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. Jake says:

    A Liberal Jews is either a stark raving uber hypocrite or else is a high IQ idiot blind to obvious things that might make him question certain core articles of faith.

    Nothing new there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. guest says:

    “The question, of course, is not fascinating.”

    “Of course.” You already know that, so why am I even telling you?

    “It is old, dreary and indecent, philosophically shabby and politically ugly”

    Except for “dreary,” all that actually sounds like it could be fascinating. To me, at least. I realize New Republic readers don’t like old things, unless they’re about the of their enemies’ evil. But shabby philosophy might be funny, and ugliness has its interest. We all know indecency can be interesting.

    The most important word is “indecent.” Nature versus nurture is something that’s simply not thought about. That is, if there’s any chance you’ll come down on the side of nature. Otherwise, drive it from your mind! Don’t think about it. Not in front of a lady, certainly, but not in front of anyone. Not even at night, alone under your covers. Foreshame!

    I’m not familiar with this modern-day Beethoven’s writings, but something tells me he doesn’t go around calling things “indecent,” or “I say good day, sir!” everyday. Something about the Bell Curve brings out the Victorian scold in them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. guest says:

    “I would like to believe that what I will achieve in my life will be owed to myself and not to my group”

    It would be owed to yourself, if yourself actually is the cause, even if your group gave you an advantage in intelligence. Or, more specifically, your parents did. Because you did not spring forth up on the earth ex nihilo.

    Michael Jordan practiced really hard, but he’s not responsible for his height and other natural gifts. He got those from James and Deloris Jordan. Ah, but physical group-distinctions we’re allowed to talk about. Not so mental.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. That last line sounds like G.K. Chesterton if he smoked crack.

    I thought it was pretty good. It’s the obscurantist motivation behind it that I would impeach.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Je Suis Charlie Martel
    “That last line sounds like G.K. Chesterton if he smoked crack.”

    I spit out my wine. Brilliant line
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Lagertha says:

    I am mystified: Jews have never had armies/been generals – in USA/been kings in Europe circa 1800…but they have had so many opinions about power in the 20th and 21st centuries. I have never understood what they really (militant, American-born Jews) want. Jews cutting down other jews is like Luther (original Christian Bad Ass) cutting down other Christians…which leads back to my question; what is up with Jews these days? Also, wanted to remind people, who care, this is the 500th anniversary of the Lutheran Church.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. You know, Chomsky’s mom used to protest to her Jewish friends who despised Noam as a traitor that “he’s a genius, they’ve invited him to Oxford, they compare him to Spinoza!”

    Fair enough.

    But there’s only room for one Jewish-American Spinoza in Boston and it damn sure wasn’t Leon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J. Sailerite
    Spinoza helped attack Judaism and got us the progenitorial thought used by the Scott Weiners of the world, so the comparison is quite apt.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. What exactly is Wieseltier accused of, again? The article in the Atlantic I read about it wasn’t very clear about what specifically he (at least allegedly) did.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. I’m not familiar with this modern-day Beethoven’s writings

    Allow me then to whet your appetite.

    Here is Larry Auster commenting on one particularly odious remark made by Wieseltier.

    When Charles Moore of the London Spectator described how his Muslim neighbors prayed loudly next-door during the Gulf War in 1991, and spoke of his worries of what would happen to England if the number of Muslims kept increasing, an enraged Leon Wieseltier, literary editor of The New Republic, fired off this riposte:

    Three cheers, I say, for the neighbors. I hope that they pray noisily, and that they pray five times a day, and that the evening prayer comes just as the Moores and the Mellors are turning to the claret … It is amusing to watch the colonizers complain about being colonized. [The New Republic, January 6, 1992.]

    Wieseltier is not exactly shy in his hatred. He mocks an Englishmen’s fears about the survival of English culture. He rejoices at the thought of Englishmen being discomforted, disoriented, and displaced in their own country by Muslims. If anyone is driven by an ethnic animus, surely it is Wieseltier and the many Jews who think and feel as he does.

    I was never a huge of fan of Larry Auster (especially not after I was ‘Austericized’ from his circle for some Jew-critical commentary that cut a bit close to the bone), but I’m hugely supportive of his attitude towards his fellow Jews – which was essentially, we had a good thing going here, why’d you have to go and wreck it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. (I will refer only to him, since he is the principal author of what this magazine has published, and de mortuis nil nisi bonum)

    Certain exceptions provided for by the Yemach shemo rule aside, of course.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. Gore Vidal used to refer to Wieseltier simply as Hair.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    Spinoza would have been more equanimical about The Bell Curve.

    Speaking of Peretz though, now that the dam is breaking everywhere else, when will the dirty details come out about him and his proteges? Which ones (if any) did he have homosexual relations with?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. @silviosilver

    That last line sounds like G.K. Chesterton if he smoked crack.
     
    I thought it was pretty good. It's the obscurantist motivation behind it that I would impeach.

    “That last line sounds like G.K. Chesterton if he smoked crack.”

    I spit out my wine. Brilliant line

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Herzog says:

    Just for fun, a little name etymology. In my native German, “wiesel” means weasel (in fact, the two words are even pronounced identically, it’s just the orthographic conventions that differ), and “tier” means animal.

    As Mr. Wieseltier proudly claims European Ashkenazi roots, a German origin of his surname does not at all seem unlikely.

    The weasel part has a certain charm to it, don’t you think?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. black sea says:

    “He was fluent and learned in almost everything one talked about,”

    And he has GENIUS hair!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. @anonymouslee
    You know, Chomsky's mom used to protest to her Jewish friends who despised Noam as a traitor that "he's a genius, they've invited him to Oxford, they compare him to Spinoza!"

    Fair enough.

    But there's only room for one Jewish-American Spinoza in Boston and it damn sure wasn't Leon.

    Spinoza helped attack Judaism and got us the progenitorial thought used by the Scott Weiners of the world, so the comparison is quite apt.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Dan Hayes says:

    How about substituting J S Bach for Beethoven in “prophet-meets-Beethoven affect” since Bach’s hairdo bears more resemblance to Wieseltier’s?

    Although in light of Bach’s fervid Lutheranism I would not expect Wieseltier to be too receptive for this change.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. There are really two school of Jew-crit. Call them the ‘behavioral’ and the ‘existential.’

    The behavioral school criticizes Jewish behavior, with a view to changing prevailing Jewish behavioral patterns. When the behavior changes, so does the criticism. (As Keynes might have said had he applied himself to a bit of Jew-crit, “When the behavior changes, so does my attitude – what does yours do so, sir?”)

    The existential school criticizes Jewish existence. Sure, they will criticize behavior a la the behavioral school too, but that’s only because Jewish behavior adds insult to injury: it’s the fact that Jews are here, walking among us, that is the actual problem.

    Larry Auster was on the verge of comprehending this crucial distinction just before he died. Very few other Jews understand it – or, more importantly, trust it – at all. Paul Gottfried would surely be one, but how old is he now? Our esteemed host, Mr. Unz, is very likely another. Such men are clearly few and bar between, however.

    In terms of critics, I would place Sailer firmly in the behavioral school. So too Derbyshire (I mean, what little emanates from him in this regard). Kevin MacDonald is a tougher to categorize. I think he started out in the behavioral school, but his trials and tribulations are pushing him to the existential school.

    Groups like the ADL understand this only too well. Yes, most of them start out as behavioralists, they’ll tell you, but it’s only a matter of time before they transform into snarling Hitlerite existentialists. And frankly, there’s considerable evidence – which I’ve seen with my own eyes – to support this contention.

    So what’s a good behavioralist to do then? Alas, I don’t have any definitive answers, except: press on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Gentiles hate Jews because they're the chosen people of god. It's envy. Not of material wealth note, since even poor Jews are hated, but envy of the special relationship they have with god. That's all it's ever been about, for 4000 years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. guest says:

    “As if it were science that drew Murray to the subject!”

    What, praytell, did draw him? Malign spirits? Filthy lucre? The anti-semitism you’re not accusing him of possessing? Libertarianism? What?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. Mr. Blank says:

    That excerpt is a fascinating clinical example of crimestop in action.

    I admit I haven’t followed Wieseltier in recent years, but I’d wager he is not nearly so skeptical about the capabilities and accomplishments of social scientists producing research he finds congenial. As a good liberal, he’d probably be happy to delegate vast powers and resources to “experts” whose work rests on far shoddier foundations than Murray’s.

    No, it’s only when we venture into the dark and forbidden realm of IQ and genetics that he suddenly goes all Chestertonian, scratching his chin and pondering the inherent limits of man’s knowledge, and fulminating against the ridiculous vanity of the scientist who thinks the beautiful mysteries of life are contained in silly little numbers and charts and graphs.

    Amazing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. Decades spent rationalizing to oneself the kind of behavior that has recently come to light has a way of dulling the sharpest intellect and degrading the finest character. It’s no surprise that by the time the Bell Curve came around Wieseltier had too little of either left to tell decent from indecent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. Rationalizing intellectual malpractice is child’s play next to his everyday (mis-)behavior. It does not speak well of our age that we’re so vulnerable to the dubious charms of utter charlatans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @black sea
    “I hear it said of somebody that he is leading a double life. I think to myself: Just two?”
    ― Leon Wieseltier, Against Identity
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    He prefers hourglass curves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    A real upper tier weasel

    I think he came up with the Obama Plan of viciously wrecking Libya and Syria OVER THERE and graciously welcoming the ‘refugees’ OVER HERE.

    https://isteve.blogspot.com/2010/09/invite-invade.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Steve-

    What is your best post on citizenism? Have anything recent?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. @Buzz Mohawk
    This man appears not to even understand what a bell curve is.

    Don't tell me his intelligence is verbally high and spatially not-so-much.

    He insults graphs in general.

    I think he might be good at words but not math.

    I’ve heard other authors say that including graphs in their books may drastically affect the potential audience.

    The mere sight of a graph will cause some readers to close the book for good.

    I don’t think I can write as well as Weiseltier but I find that graphs often explain concepts that you can’t understand any other way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    My reply to you ended up as a stand-alone comment, and is repeated here:

    … I find that graphs often explain concepts that you can’t understand any other way.
     
    Damn right. I’m the opposite of the potential audience, I guess, because I’d rather look at graphs than read.

    Is it really true that a so-called smart cohort of people can be that deficient in their ability to make sense of spacial representations? Is this what we call the stupid-smart people? Is this why they get so narrowly focused on their concepts as to be unable to understand others’ arguments? Is this why they are so damn good at rapidly verbalizing their way around you with total self-satisfaction while totally missing your point?

    That’s a long list of questions. I should have put them in a graph somehow.
    , @Desiderius
    The classic:

    https://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/books_vdqi
    , @Stephen R. Diamond

    He insults graphs in general
     
    Idiotic. This is hardly a insult to the poor graphs: "But Murray’s enterprise collapses, theoretically and morally, long before he gets to his graphs. For the question of the bearing of science on life is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical question. There is not a graph in the world that will explain the place of graphs in the world."

    I'm certainly not defending Wieseltier. But you've got to do better than this idiocy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. whorefinder says: • Website

    1. The worst thing a gentile can do to a Jew is notice he’s a Jew.

    2. The worst thing a Jew can do to a fellow Jew is not notice he’s a Jew.

    3. The second worst thing a Jew can do to a fellow Jew is alert the goyim that either of them are Jews and different from the goyim.

    Everything Leon Wieseltier wrote about The Bell Curve above is covered by those three rules.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver
    whorefinder, I'm going to hope that there's some quirk in the comment queue keeping mine from showing rather than a comment moderation decision because this is far blunter language than I used. (Not that I disagree with anything you said.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. black sea says:
    @Desiderius
    Rationalizing intellectual malpractice is child's play next to his everyday (mis-)behavior. It does not speak well of our age that we're so vulnerable to the dubious charms of utter charlatans.

    “I hear it said of somebody that he is leading a double life. I think to myself: Just two?”
    ― Leon Wieseltier, Against Identity

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Reminds me of George Costanza. Jon Lovitz plays a character in an episode of Seinfeld who's been pretending to suffer from cancer. He says, "I've been living a lie."

    George responds, "Just one? I'm living like 20."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. … I find that graphs often explain concepts that you can’t understand any other way.

    Damn right. I’m the opposite of the potential audience, I guess, because I’d rather look at graphs than read.

    Is it really true that a so-called smart cohort of people can be that deficient in their ability to make sense of spacial representations? Is this what we call the stupid-smart people? Is this why they get so narrowly focused on their concepts as to be unable to understand others’ arguments? Is this why they are so damn good at rapidly verbalizing their way around you with total self-satisfaction while totally missing your point?

    That’s a long list of questions. I should have put them in a graph somehow.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    There are people who allow themselves to be thrown by spatial representations about statistics/probability simply because they don't like math. They put a wall up between themselves and understanding. If it was a spatial representation of their feelings about their favorite foods, or something else they're unafraid of, they'd understand perfectly.

    In this case, my assumption is that his graph hang-up is a pretence. If you produced a graph demonstrating Murray's data was wrong, he'd probably eat it up.

    , @Desiderius
    They're just not that smart when it comes down to it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Just the sheer stupid irrationality of his comments beggar belief.

    I suppose he might be smarter than Ta-Nehisi, but you couldn’t tell from these gibberings.

    Try to find an argument in that pile.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. guest says:
    @black sea
    “I hear it said of somebody that he is leading a double life. I think to myself: Just two?”
    ― Leon Wieseltier, Against Identity

    Reminds me of George Costanza. Jon Lovitz plays a character in an episode of Seinfeld who’s been pretending to suffer from cancer. He says, “I’ve been living a lie.”

    George responds, “Just one? I’m living like 20.”

    Read More
    • LOL: jim jones
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. guest says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    ... I find that graphs often explain concepts that you can’t understand any other way.
     
    Damn right. I'm the opposite of the potential audience, I guess, because I'd rather look at graphs than read.

    Is it really true that a so-called smart cohort of people can be that deficient in their ability to make sense of spacial representations? Is this what we call the stupid-smart people? Is this why they get so narrowly focused on their concepts as to be unable to understand others' arguments? Is this why they are so damn good at rapidly verbalizing their way around you with total self-satisfaction while totally missing your point?

    That's a long list of questions. I should have put them in a graph somehow.

    There are people who allow themselves to be thrown by spatial representations about statistics/probability simply because they don’t like math. They put a wall up between themselves and understanding. If it was a spatial representation of their feelings about their favorite foods, or something else they’re unafraid of, they’d understand perfectly.

    In this case, my assumption is that his graph hang-up is a pretence. If you produced a graph demonstrating Murray’s data was wrong, he’d probably eat it up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver

    In this case, my assumption is that his graph hang-up is a pretence.
     
    Gee, ya think?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. 22pp22 says:

    He thinks the act he puts on (of which the hair is a part) and the complete certainty with which he makes every unsubstantiated sweeping statement raises him to the level of a literary genius. It does not. I would like to see a Takimag article slicing an dicing this guy. It shouldn’t be that hard.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. Moshe says:

    Steve is a great man.

    In every way.

    It seems to me however Steve that when Jews do something bad, they are Jews. When they do something tou approve of they are Whites.

    You made much of Nobels-too-white when im fact they are nobels-too-jewish.

    In terms of achievement Jews are to Whites as Whites are to Blacks.

    It’s clear as day. Nothing from the social sciences is clearer.

    Is that why your readers love reading every example of “Jews Behaving Badly”? Because, in more literate terms they are nuttily The Man keeping them down?

    You know very well, even if many of your readers do not, that the matter of Israel aside, Jews perform no worse than anyone else among the elite. And those Jews part of the lower classes crime no more than their socioeconomic compatriots either.

    Roger Alies got a pass. No mention. He doesn’t fit The Narrative.

    Bill’O has been paying off women – publicly – for over a decade. How much have you played that up?

    It’s almost like you have a third antenna to sniff out any potential wrongdoing by a member of this tribe. It feeds The Narrative that is so popular in this local echo-chamber. Throwing in a commensurate number of goyim would ruin it.

    Better yet, does anyone imagine for a moment (anyone remotely sane that is) that Trump has been more appropriate with women than Weinstein? Even for a moment??

    But making a big deal of it locally would confuse people locked into the narrative. So it only gets – at best – a couple of asides. No stuttering and pointing. Unlie those pervy Jews (we all know how pervy they are, just ask julius streicher and hefner and flynt and glitter and 10 thousand Catholic Priests. They tell ya.

    I mean, you even had to dig up some director nobody ever heard of and show us his slimy jewish visage. And of course you made sure to get his Jewishness in there. Making a big deal of him and expecting people to wiki him won’t suffice.

    As for these men…

    What the fuck did they do already?!

    Their unfortunate Jewish consciences has them falling over in apologies and shame. Fucking portnoyesque neurotics feeling guilty about anything to do wiyh sex so that the moment they’re exposed of having – uh, what? – they prostrate, weep and beg for forgiveness. No Trumpian comfort in one’s own skin there.

    Again.

    What the fuck are they accused of doing?

    If these accusations were made against Watson (which they could have you know, but they had a better one), you’d be all over them for having fun bringing down this man without any hint of garyglittering or even of Newtgingriching.

    Here’s what brought Weisleiter to grovel:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/10/the-harvey-effect-reaches-leon-wieseltier/543897/

    Is there ANY reader who woild not be outraged by this witch hunt if it was against somebody they respected?

    As far as I can tell, boys will be boys.

    Anyone man “innocent” of those sins is no man at all.

    And you know that Steve.

    Why not write ANY stories about how this is all an insane feminist witch hunt?

    No, we’re in name-the-jew mode.

    In the interest of full disclosure, I myself am pleased that this is not happening to, say, Charles Murray (though you and I know that it could, from his earlier days anyway). And I must admit that I am having loads of fun watching this ridiculous monster eat the elite that generally supported it, or at least stayed silent.

    The elite went after us for all this bullshit and it’s fun watching Frankenstein turn on them instead of us for a while. I really like it. Not to mention, I’ll admit, a certain pleasure watching people better off than me being publicly humiliated and hopefully going to jail for false exaggerations of what they did. Watching your enemies (and the elite, generally, are my enemies) go down may not be my finest trait but I’ll fess to it.

    But Steve, haven’t you fallen into some yarmulaka shaped vortex where you only see select things, and then only in the bad light? And of far greater concern, aren’t you burying the lede? The lede that you somehow see as less of a news story than something Weisleiter wrote OVER TWO DECADES AGO??

    I know for a fact (and let me inform other readers that I REALLY do know this for a FACT) that you would never purposefully do anyyhing malicious in this regard. You do not have am unhealthy distaste for the sons of moses. (Again, let me tell readers that I know this even from data EXTERNAL to tgis blog.)

    But I think you are messing up here. And violating your own principles of fairness and of seeing what there IS to see and of slicing and dicing the media’s wacko-level-feminist beliefs and insidious character assassinations.

    I know you don’t care how your readers will see the world based on what and how you write. And BRAVO! You shouldn’t give a damn. I don’t think of you as being in the propaganda business – where readers’ perceptions are all that matters. You are in the Being Your Awesome Self business. And that’s part of what makes you so great.

    Consider the uncomfortable yet undeniably true perspective (unless you are one of us) that as Blacks are to Whites, Whites are to Jews, and rhen consider whether your recent Jew related articles are very different from how intelligent blacks think of whites, what they notice about whites, how they see things in the worst possible perspective about whites and how they bury the lede, even when their own principles would exonerate the whites under attack.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. @Frau Katze
    He insults graphs in general.

    I think he might be good at words but not math.

    I've heard other authors say that including graphs in their books may drastically affect the potential audience.

    The mere sight of a graph will cause some readers to close the book for good.

    I don't think I can write as well as Weiseltier but I find that graphs often explain concepts that you can't understand any other way.

    My reply to you ended up as a stand-alone comment, and is repeated here:

    … I find that graphs often explain concepts that you can’t understand any other way.

    Damn right. I’m the opposite of the potential audience, I guess, because I’d rather look at graphs than read.

    Is it really true that a so-called smart cohort of people can be that deficient in their ability to make sense of spacial representations? Is this what we call the stupid-smart people? Is this why they get so narrowly focused on their concepts as to be unable to understand others’ arguments? Is this why they are so damn good at rapidly verbalizing their way around you with total self-satisfaction while totally missing your point?

    That’s a long list of questions. I should have put them in a graph somehow.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Hubbub says:

    One shouldn’t have to read something more than once to make sense of it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. Ed says:

    Coates tweet when the Weiseltier harrassment story first broke: https://twitter.com/tanehisicoates/status/922946400186519552

    He went on a mini rant about the racist New Republic afterwards.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. Steve,

    Did anybody ever tell you you look like Roger McGuinn?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. @whorefinder
    1. The worst thing a gentile can do to a Jew is notice he's a Jew.

    2. The worst thing a Jew can do to a fellow Jew is not notice he's a Jew.

    3. The second worst thing a Jew can do to a fellow Jew is alert the goyim that either of them are Jews and different from the goyim.

    Everything Leon Wieseltier wrote about The Bell Curve above is covered by those three rules.

    whorefinder, I’m going to hope that there’s some quirk in the comment queue keeping mine from showing rather than a comment moderation decision because this is far blunter language than I used. (Not that I disagree with anything you said.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @guest
    There are people who allow themselves to be thrown by spatial representations about statistics/probability simply because they don't like math. They put a wall up between themselves and understanding. If it was a spatial representation of their feelings about their favorite foods, or something else they're unafraid of, they'd understand perfectly.

    In this case, my assumption is that his graph hang-up is a pretence. If you produced a graph demonstrating Murray's data was wrong, he'd probably eat it up.

    In this case, my assumption is that his graph hang-up is a pretence.

    Gee, ya think?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Sure it's a pretense, but he deserves everything we can throw at him. He's pretending to be a lazy idiot just so he can persuade others to ignore what they see and just focus on his words.

    His pretense is, "I have no place for a graph or for anything else that displays true things that I don't want others looking at."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Frau Katze
    He insults graphs in general.

    I think he might be good at words but not math.

    I've heard other authors say that including graphs in their books may drastically affect the potential audience.

    The mere sight of a graph will cause some readers to close the book for good.

    I don't think I can write as well as Weiseltier but I find that graphs often explain concepts that you can't understand any other way.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @Buzz Mohawk

    ... I find that graphs often explain concepts that you can’t understand any other way.
     
    Damn right. I'm the opposite of the potential audience, I guess, because I'd rather look at graphs than read.

    Is it really true that a so-called smart cohort of people can be that deficient in their ability to make sense of spacial representations? Is this what we call the stupid-smart people? Is this why they get so narrowly focused on their concepts as to be unable to understand others' arguments? Is this why they are so damn good at rapidly verbalizing their way around you with total self-satisfaction while totally missing your point?

    That's a long list of questions. I should have put them in a graph somehow.

    They’re just not that smart when it comes down to it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Weiseltier The Great Thinker, and his hair, must not be a fan of Descartes, the inferior hack who invented the Cartesian coordinate plane.

    So here’s a non-Cartesian graph where Weiseltier can have fun finding Descartes in the history of philosophy. (It’s even more fun than Where’s Waldo?):

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. @silviosilver

    In this case, my assumption is that his graph hang-up is a pretence.
     
    Gee, ya think?

    Sure it’s a pretense, but he deserves everything we can throw at him. He’s pretending to be a lazy idiot just so he can persuade others to ignore what they see and just focus on his words.

    His pretense is, “I have no place for a graph or for anything else that displays true things that I don’t want others looking at.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver

    Sure it’s a pretense, but he deserves everything we can throw at him.
     
    The word "but" is out of place here. It suggests I somehow disagree. On the contrary, of course his pretence merits derision.

    His pretense is, “I have no place for a graph or for anything else that displays true things that I don’t want others looking at.”
     
    No, that's his actual belief. The pretence itself is, "Graphs can't tell us anything important about human behavior." Which is complete BS, because as someone noted above, if the graphs supported what he wants to believe (or wants others to believe) about human behavior, he'd happily trumpet them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Aylok says:

    The hilarious thing about that 1995 Vanity Fair profile is that they only put it online *today*. It was so devastating, apparently, that although it ran in the print edition Wieseltier got his friends at VF to hide it. Apparently journos used to pass photocopies of it round. (See David Graham’s Twitter feed.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver

    It was so devastating, apparently, that although it ran in the print edition Wieseltier got his friends at VF to hide it.
     
    I didn't find anything particularly devastating in it.

    It does give the impression that he failed to produce the kind of intellectually rigorous output that some of his mentors expected of him, in favor of mixing it with socialites. Is that really such a great sin, though? It is his life, to do with as he pleases, after all.

    Anyway, I'm much less interested in the private lives of these people than in their public influence.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Buzz Mohawk
    This man appears not to even understand what a bell curve is.

    Don't tell me his intelligence is verbally high and spatially not-so-much.

    Do tell him that psychological traits aren’t normally distributed.

    We revisit a long-held assumption in human resource management, organizational behavior, and industrial and organizational psychology that individual performance follows a Gaussian (normal) distribution. We conducted 5 studies involving 198 samples including 633,263 researchers, entertainers, politicians, and amateur and professional athletes. Results are remarkably consistent across industries, types of jobs, types of performance measures, and time frames and indicate that individual performance is not normally distributed—instead, it follows a Paretian (power law) distribution. Assuming normality of individual performance can lead to misspecified theories and misleading practices. Thus, our results have implications for all theories and applications that directly or indirectly address the performance of individual workers including performance measurement and management, utility analysis in preemployment testing and training and development, personnel selection, leadership, and the prediction of performance, among others.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01239.x/full

    “at many physiological and anatomical levels in the brain, the distribution of numerous parameters is in fact strongly skewed . . . suggesting that skewed . . . distributions are fundamental to structural and functional brain organization. This insight . . . has implications for how we should collect and analyze data.”

    http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v15/n4/abs/nrn3687.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "We revisit a long-held assumption in human resource management, organizational behavior, and industrial and organizational psychology"

    Maybe instead debunking allegedly long-held assumptions they should Notice that none of those disciplines actually exists.
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    You say, "...psychological traits aren’t normally distributed."

    But the abstract you linked says,


    ...individual performance is not normally distributed.
     
    Yes, those of us who have had the misfortune to manage work groups know all about 80/20. This is performance, not "psychological traits."

    The other one linked says,


    ... at many physiological and anatomical levels in the brain, the distribution of numerous parameters is in fact strongly skewed . . .
     
    Okay. The cylinders in the straight-six engine of my BMW lean over to one side, but that doesn't seem to effect the horsepower. This is a physical trait.

    So, what of those "psychological traits"? Like IQ? Granted, it is a kind of performance, one of taking IQ tests, but the results have a normal distribution, and it's not the kind of performance being measured in the study referenced anyway. IQ, by definition, is a "psychological trait," and it has a normal distribution.

    Honestly, I don't know what your point is, but I don't disagree with what you have shown me. I know it's true, but I'm just too far left on your ski jump curve of losers to grasp why you responded to me that way.

    Wieseltier was referring to The Bell Curve, in which results have a normal distribution.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Pericles says:

    “Granted, somebody might make fun of you for such a transparent ploy, but you are” Leonard Farkakte Wieseltier.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. @Buzz Mohawk
    Sure it's a pretense, but he deserves everything we can throw at him. He's pretending to be a lazy idiot just so he can persuade others to ignore what they see and just focus on his words.

    His pretense is, "I have no place for a graph or for anything else that displays true things that I don't want others looking at."

    Sure it’s a pretense, but he deserves everything we can throw at him.

    The word “but” is out of place here. It suggests I somehow disagree. On the contrary, of course his pretence merits derision.

    His pretense is, “I have no place for a graph or for anything else that displays true things that I don’t want others looking at.”

    No, that’s his actual belief. The pretence itself is, “Graphs can’t tell us anything important about human behavior.” Which is complete BS, because as someone noted above, if the graphs supported what he wants to believe (or wants others to believe) about human behavior, he’d happily trumpet them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    So he is in fact an idiot then.

    And/Or a dedicated priest of social-intellectual dogma. Well, we run into his type all the time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @silviosilver

    Sure it’s a pretense, but he deserves everything we can throw at him.
     
    The word "but" is out of place here. It suggests I somehow disagree. On the contrary, of course his pretence merits derision.

    His pretense is, “I have no place for a graph or for anything else that displays true things that I don’t want others looking at.”
     
    No, that's his actual belief. The pretence itself is, "Graphs can't tell us anything important about human behavior." Which is complete BS, because as someone noted above, if the graphs supported what he wants to believe (or wants others to believe) about human behavior, he'd happily trumpet them.

    So he is in fact an idiot then.

    And/Or a dedicated priest of social-intellectual dogma. Well, we run into his type all the time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver
    No, Buzz, I'm not calling him an idiot. I'm calling him a politically motivated liar.

    Well, no surprises there. Frankly, I'd do the same if the truth wasn't cutting it for me.

    All's fair in love and race-war. It's more important to politically defeat him than to morally condemn him.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. guest says:
    @RaceRealist88
    Do tell him that psychological traits aren't normally distributed.

    We revisit a long-held assumption in human resource management, organizational behavior, and industrial and organizational psychology that individual performance follows a Gaussian (normal) distribution. We conducted 5 studies involving 198 samples including 633,263 researchers, entertainers, politicians, and amateur and professional athletes. Results are remarkably consistent across industries, types of jobs, types of performance measures, and time frames and indicate that individual performance is not normally distributed—instead, it follows a Paretian (power law) distribution. Assuming normality of individual performance can lead to misspecified theories and misleading practices. Thus, our results have implications for all theories and applications that directly or indirectly address the performance of individual workers including performance measurement and management, utility analysis in preemployment testing and training and development, personnel selection, leadership, and the prediction of performance, among others.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01239.x/full

    “at many physiological and anatomical levels in the brain, the distribution of numerous parameters is in fact strongly skewed . . . suggesting that skewed . . . distributions are fundamental to structural and functional brain organization. This insight . . . has implications for how we should collect and analyze data.”

    http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v15/n4/abs/nrn3687.html

    “We revisit a long-held assumption in human resource management, organizational behavior, and industrial and organizational psychology”

    Maybe instead debunking allegedly long-held assumptions they should Notice that none of those disciplines actually exists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @Aylok
    The hilarious thing about that 1995 Vanity Fair profile is that they only put it online *today*. It was so devastating, apparently, that although it ran in the print edition Wieseltier got his friends at VF to hide it. Apparently journos used to pass photocopies of it round. (See David Graham's Twitter feed.)

    It was so devastating, apparently, that although it ran in the print edition Wieseltier got his friends at VF to hide it.

    I didn’t find anything particularly devastating in it.

    It does give the impression that he failed to produce the kind of intellectually rigorous output that some of his mentors expected of him, in favor of mixing it with socialites. Is that really such a great sin, though? It is his life, to do with as he pleases, after all.

    Anyway, I’m much less interested in the private lives of these people than in their public influence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The job description of editing the Paris Review literary journal, which is based in New York, includes going to parties and being witty in the tradition of Paris Review founder George Plimpton in order to attract publicity and add glamor to the magazine. It seems like a pretty good investment. I forget the name of the current editor, but he translated Houellebecq's "Submission."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Buzz Mohawk
    So he is in fact an idiot then.

    And/Or a dedicated priest of social-intellectual dogma. Well, we run into his type all the time.

    No, Buzz, I’m not calling him an idiot. I’m calling him a politically motivated liar.

    Well, no surprises there. Frankly, I’d do the same if the truth wasn’t cutting it for me.

    All’s fair in love and race-war. It’s more important to politically defeat him than to morally condemn him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @silviosilver

    It was so devastating, apparently, that although it ran in the print edition Wieseltier got his friends at VF to hide it.
     
    I didn't find anything particularly devastating in it.

    It does give the impression that he failed to produce the kind of intellectually rigorous output that some of his mentors expected of him, in favor of mixing it with socialites. Is that really such a great sin, though? It is his life, to do with as he pleases, after all.

    Anyway, I'm much less interested in the private lives of these people than in their public influence.

    The job description of editing the Paris Review literary journal, which is based in New York, includes going to parties and being witty in the tradition of Paris Review founder George Plimpton in order to attract publicity and add glamor to the magazine. It seems like a pretty good investment. I forget the name of the current editor, but he translated Houellebecq’s “Submission.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymouslee
    The cocktail party circuit theory of our supposed intellectual elite must be one of the most robust in all of social science.

    Depending on where along the political spectrum power is situated, apostates almost always make their corrective leap in that direction, discovering the virtues of the status quo. "The last thing you can be accused of is having turned your coat," Thomas Mann wrote a convert to National Socialism right after Hitler’s seizure of power. "You always wore it the `right’ way around." If apostasy weren’t conditioned by power considerations, one would anticipate roughly equal movements in both directions. But that’s never been the case. The would-be apostate almost always pulls towards power’s magnetic field, rarely away. However elaborate the testimonials on how one came to "see the light," the impetus behind political apostasy is – pardon my cynicism – a fairly straightforward, uncomplicated affair: to cash in, or keep cashing in, on earthly pleasures. Indeed, an apostate can even capitalize on the past to increase his or her current exchange value
     
    .

    --from Norman Finkelstein's devastating essay on Christopher Hitchens
    , @silviosilver

    It seems like a pretty good investment.
     
    It sure does. But the VF piece portrays him as having failed to live up to expectations - kinda like "So where's the flying car your potential promised me?"

    He pretty much confesses to laziness in that piece:

    As he once told a pal, “You must always have a cover. You always have to have something you can tell people you’re doing, something really nifty.” Wieseltier’s friend pointedly adds, “When in fact what you’re doing is eating peanuts in bed.”
     
    I had to laugh when I read that. I figured it out for myself in my early 20's, although I wouldn't have dreamed of ever confessing it to anyone. It's amazing what a bum you can get away with being in the eyes of people you want to impress as long as they think you're doing something really important. It's the closest thing I've found to having your cake and eating it, too. Of course, you have to be fine with deception, and not everybody is, but if you are, kiddo, the world's your oyster, lol.

    (It's even better to actually be productive, but when you score as low in natural conscientiousness on the Big Five personality test as I do, well, you've gotta play the hand mother nature deals you.)
    , @Dave Pinsen
    Lorin Stein.

    The Paris Review isn't a bad follow on Twitter. They tweet links to interviews they've published with Evelyn Waugh, E.B. White, and Houellebecq. They also share interviews with affirmative action hacks like Claudia Rankin, but you can ignore those.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Wieseltier sure can be a jerk, but his book KADDISH is deeply moving.

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/47179.Kaddish

    And he is a brilliant writer. One of the best stylists around.

    And his piece on Later Springsteen was dead on.

    https://newrepublic.com/article/105712/saint-city

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/springsteen-the-phony/

    I think Wieseltier’s problem is all too common among Jewish Liberals. On the one hand, they sincerely do want to be cosmopolitan individualists, ‘citizens of the world’. So, they have a tendency to denigrate any sign of ‘atavistic’ nationalism or anti-intellectual populism.
    However, their undying and even fanatical support for Zionism and Jewish pride makes us wonder if their anti-gentile-nationalism is really sincere and principled OR strategic and opportunistic to favor Jewish interests above all.

    It’s possible that these Jewish Liberals don’t really know themselves because they are so deeply invested in cosmopolitan liberalism and Zionist tribalism.
    Peretz himself was a deeply contradictory figure, an ardent Zionist nationalist editing a premier magazine of Liberal Ideas.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver

    I think Wieseltier’s problem is all too common among Jewish Liberals. On the one hand, they sincerely do want to be cosmopolitan individualists, ‘citizens of the world’. So, they have a tendency to denigrate any sign of ‘atavistic’ nationalism or anti-intellectual populism.
     
    To his credit, Wieseltier actually managed to walk the walk - he tossed away the yarmulke and married a muslim Pakistani.

    It didn't last, and as outrageous as it sounds, I suppose there is some possibility that he only did it so he could deflect later criticism.

    As an ardent ethnocentrist myself, I've long felt that there is no lie so vile I wouldn't tell it, no act so low I wouldn't stoop to it, if it was a matter of defending my vital racial interests, so the possibility I suggested doesn't strike me as so ridiculous that no one would ever, under any circumstances, contemplate it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @silviosilver
    There are really two school of Jew-crit. Call them the 'behavioral' and the 'existential.'

    The behavioral school criticizes Jewish behavior, with a view to changing prevailing Jewish behavioral patterns. When the behavior changes, so does the criticism. (As Keynes might have said had he applied himself to a bit of Jew-crit, "When the behavior changes, so does my attitude - what does yours do so, sir?")

    The existential school criticizes Jewish existence. Sure, they will criticize behavior a la the behavioral school too, but that's only because Jewish behavior adds insult to injury: it's the fact that Jews are here, walking among us, that is the actual problem.

    Larry Auster was on the verge of comprehending this crucial distinction just before he died. Very few other Jews understand it - or, more importantly, trust it - at all. Paul Gottfried would surely be one, but how old is he now? Our esteemed host, Mr. Unz, is very likely another. Such men are clearly few and bar between, however.

    In terms of critics, I would place Sailer firmly in the behavioral school. So too Derbyshire (I mean, what little emanates from him in this regard). Kevin MacDonald is a tougher to categorize. I think he started out in the behavioral school, but his trials and tribulations are pushing him to the existential school.

    Groups like the ADL understand this only too well. Yes, most of them start out as behavioralists, they'll tell you, but it's only a matter of time before they transform into snarling Hitlerite existentialists. And frankly, there's considerable evidence - which I've seen with my own eyes - to support this contention.

    So what's a good behavioralist to do then? Alas, I don't have any definitive answers, except: press on.

    Gentiles hate Jews because they’re the chosen people of god. It’s envy. Not of material wealth note, since even poor Jews are hated, but envy of the special relationship they have with god. That’s all it’s ever been about, for 4000 years.

    Read More
    • LOL: Bubba
    • Replies: @silviosilver
    There are countless neo-nazis with racial biology on the brain who don't believe in God but whose hatred of Jews is unmatched by anyone.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Steve Sailer
    The job description of editing the Paris Review literary journal, which is based in New York, includes going to parties and being witty in the tradition of Paris Review founder George Plimpton in order to attract publicity and add glamor to the magazine. It seems like a pretty good investment. I forget the name of the current editor, but he translated Houellebecq's "Submission."

    The cocktail party circuit theory of our supposed intellectual elite must be one of the most robust in all of social science.

    Depending on where along the political spectrum power is situated, apostates almost always make their corrective leap in that direction, discovering the virtues of the status quo. “The last thing you can be accused of is having turned your coat,” Thomas Mann wrote a convert to National Socialism right after Hitler’s seizure of power. “You always wore it the `right’ way around.” If apostasy weren’t conditioned by power considerations, one would anticipate roughly equal movements in both directions. But that’s never been the case. The would-be apostate almost always pulls towards power’s magnetic field, rarely away. However elaborate the testimonials on how one came to “see the light,” the impetus behind political apostasy is – pardon my cynicism – a fairly straightforward, uncomplicated affair: to cash in, or keep cashing in, on earthly pleasures. Indeed, an apostate can even capitalize on the past to increase his or her current exchange value

    .

    –from Norman Finkelstein’s devastating essay on Christopher Hitchens

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. “Wieseltier ” means weasel (or weasel-animal) in German. It’s a wonder his ancestors didn’t change it to something less, well, suggestive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. @Steve Sailer
    The job description of editing the Paris Review literary journal, which is based in New York, includes going to parties and being witty in the tradition of Paris Review founder George Plimpton in order to attract publicity and add glamor to the magazine. It seems like a pretty good investment. I forget the name of the current editor, but he translated Houellebecq's "Submission."

    It seems like a pretty good investment.

    It sure does. But the VF piece portrays him as having failed to live up to expectations – kinda like “So where’s the flying car your potential promised me?”

    He pretty much confesses to laziness in that piece:

    As he once told a pal, “You must always have a cover. You always have to have something you can tell people you’re doing, something really nifty.” Wieseltier’s friend pointedly adds, “When in fact what you’re doing is eating peanuts in bed.”

    I had to laugh when I read that. I figured it out for myself in my early 20′s, although I wouldn’t have dreamed of ever confessing it to anyone. It’s amazing what a bum you can get away with being in the eyes of people you want to impress as long as they think you’re doing something really important. It’s the closest thing I’ve found to having your cake and eating it, too. Of course, you have to be fine with deception, and not everybody is, but if you are, kiddo, the world’s your oyster, lol.

    (It’s even better to actually be productive, but when you score as low in natural conscientiousness on the Big Five personality test as I do, well, you’ve gotta play the hand mother nature deals you.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @RaceRealist88
    Do tell him that psychological traits aren't normally distributed.

    We revisit a long-held assumption in human resource management, organizational behavior, and industrial and organizational psychology that individual performance follows a Gaussian (normal) distribution. We conducted 5 studies involving 198 samples including 633,263 researchers, entertainers, politicians, and amateur and professional athletes. Results are remarkably consistent across industries, types of jobs, types of performance measures, and time frames and indicate that individual performance is not normally distributed—instead, it follows a Paretian (power law) distribution. Assuming normality of individual performance can lead to misspecified theories and misleading practices. Thus, our results have implications for all theories and applications that directly or indirectly address the performance of individual workers including performance measurement and management, utility analysis in preemployment testing and training and development, personnel selection, leadership, and the prediction of performance, among others.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01239.x/full

    “at many physiological and anatomical levels in the brain, the distribution of numerous parameters is in fact strongly skewed . . . suggesting that skewed . . . distributions are fundamental to structural and functional brain organization. This insight . . . has implications for how we should collect and analyze data.”

    http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v15/n4/abs/nrn3687.html

    You say, “…psychological traits aren’t normally distributed.”

    But the abstract you linked says,

    individual performance is not normally distributed.

    Yes, those of us who have had the misfortune to manage work groups know all about 80/20. This is performance, not “psychological traits.”

    The other one linked says,

    … at many physiological and anatomical levels in the brain, the distribution of numerous parameters is in fact strongly skewed . . .

    Okay. The cylinders in the straight-six engine of my BMW lean over to one side, but that doesn’t seem to effect the horsepower. This is a physical trait.

    So, what of those “psychological traits”? Like IQ? Granted, it is a kind of performance, one of taking IQ tests, but the results have a normal distribution, and it’s not the kind of performance being measured in the study referenced anyway. IQ, by definition, is a “psychological trait,” and it has a normal distribution.

    Honestly, I don’t know what your point is, but I don’t disagree with what you have shown me. I know it’s true, but I’m just too far left on your ski jump curve of losers to grasp why you responded to me that way.

    Wieseltier was referring to The Bell Curve, in which results have a normal distribution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EH
    Actually the distribution of intelligence itself, for which there are better (Rasch) measures than IQ, has a statistical distribution closer to one in which the logarithms of scores are normally distributed rather than the scores themselves. That is a "log-normal" distribution, common in many other traits such as height, which is almost exactly the same as a normal distribution for the middle ~90%, but which has a fatter right tail, meaning there are more high scores than the normal distribution predicts, particularly for very high intelligences, which are orders of magnitude more common than the normal curve predicts. The problem is that IQ scores are by definition normal-curve deviation IQs, measures of the rarity of a level of intelligence in a age-matched reference population and are not in fact measures of intelligence at all, they are "rubber rulers" when used to measure intelligence, the difference in intelligence between IQ 95 and 100 is actually substantially less than the difference between IQ 160 and 170.

    The further out you go the more widely IQs marks are spaced on a true scale of intelligence. (Also, elementary school-age children have much tighter distributions of intelligence than those younger or older, so more closely-spaced marks on their IQ scales.)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Anonymous
    Gentiles hate Jews because they're the chosen people of god. It's envy. Not of material wealth note, since even poor Jews are hated, but envy of the special relationship they have with god. That's all it's ever been about, for 4000 years.

    There are countless neo-nazis with racial biology on the brain who don’t believe in God but whose hatred of Jews is unmatched by anyone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @Anon
    Wieseltier sure can be a jerk, but his book KADDISH is deeply moving.

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/47179.Kaddish

    And he is a brilliant writer. One of the best stylists around.

    And his piece on Later Springsteen was dead on.

    https://newrepublic.com/article/105712/saint-city

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/springsteen-the-phony/

    I think Wieseltier's problem is all too common among Jewish Liberals. On the one hand, they sincerely do want to be cosmopolitan individualists, 'citizens of the world'. So, they have a tendency to denigrate any sign of 'atavistic' nationalism or anti-intellectual populism.
    However, their undying and even fanatical support for Zionism and Jewish pride makes us wonder if their anti-gentile-nationalism is really sincere and principled OR strategic and opportunistic to favor Jewish interests above all.

    It's possible that these Jewish Liberals don't really know themselves because they are so deeply invested in cosmopolitan liberalism and Zionist tribalism.
    Peretz himself was a deeply contradictory figure, an ardent Zionist nationalist editing a premier magazine of Liberal Ideas.

    I think Wieseltier’s problem is all too common among Jewish Liberals. On the one hand, they sincerely do want to be cosmopolitan individualists, ‘citizens of the world’. So, they have a tendency to denigrate any sign of ‘atavistic’ nationalism or anti-intellectual populism.

    To his credit, Wieseltier actually managed to walk the walk – he tossed away the yarmulke and married a muslim Pakistani.

    It didn’t last, and as outrageous as it sounds, I suppose there is some possibility that he only did it so he could deflect later criticism.

    As an ardent ethnocentrist myself, I’ve long felt that there is no lie so vile I wouldn’t tell it, no act so low I wouldn’t stoop to it, if it was a matter of defending my vital racial interests, so the possibility I suggested doesn’t strike me as so ridiculous that no one would ever, under any circumstances, contemplate it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    As an ardent ethnocentrist myself, I’ve long felt that there is no lie so vile I wouldn’t tell it, no act so low I wouldn’t stoop to it, if it was a matter of defending my vital racial interests, so the possibility I suggested doesn’t strike me as so ridiculous that no one would ever, under any circumstances, contemplate it.
     
    Thanks so much for your admission against interest. What is your ethnicity?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Steve Sailer
    The job description of editing the Paris Review literary journal, which is based in New York, includes going to parties and being witty in the tradition of Paris Review founder George Plimpton in order to attract publicity and add glamor to the magazine. It seems like a pretty good investment. I forget the name of the current editor, but he translated Houellebecq's "Submission."

    Lorin Stein.

    The Paris Review isn’t a bad follow on Twitter. They tweet links to interviews they’ve published with Evelyn Waugh, E.B. White, and Houellebecq. They also share interviews with affirmative action hacks like Claudia Rankin, but you can ignore those.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Luke Lea says:

    The New Republic magazine had been on my family’s coffee table for seventy years until I cancelled following Wieseltier’s unhinged review of Mel Gibson’s The Passion, which reminded me of nothing so much as an anti-Semitic rant. I wrote a letter to Marty Peretz complaining about it.

    Being a Harvard Junior Fellow in literature (I was surprised to learn there was such a thing) really went to Wieseltier’s head. As for whether he or Chomsky is the successor to Spinoza, am I the only one who thinks the original is overrated?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    am I the only one who thinks the original is overrated?
     
    No.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. J1234 says:

    That last line sounds like G.K. Chesterton if he smoked crack.

    LOL! That’s Steve at his best.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. @Buzz Mohawk
    This man appears not to even understand what a bell curve is.

    Don't tell me his intelligence is verbally high and spatially not-so-much.

    Understanding the bell curve is not substantially a function of spatio-visual ability.
    These sorts of stupid remarks are annoying.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Sorry to bring out your sharp edges, Mr. Diamond.

    Whether or not interpreting a plot on a Cartesian plane requires spatio-visual ability or not, the point is still valid that Weiselteir's words-only construction implies the following perspective: That simply being a member of a group whose distribution is centered either high to low must mean that he himself is necessarily high or low in whatever characteristics are measured. That is a (deliberate in his case) misinterpretation of what a bell curve is.

    This is the same lack of understanding that folks over on the left (both of their cohort's curve and of the political spectrum) seem to have. Weiselteir's words are not true to the curve, and last I checked, curves, and Cartesian plots, are spatial representations of numerical data.

    Bottom line: Sorry if you don't like the joke, but the point of it is valid.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Frau Katze
    He insults graphs in general.

    I think he might be good at words but not math.

    I've heard other authors say that including graphs in their books may drastically affect the potential audience.

    The mere sight of a graph will cause some readers to close the book for good.

    I don't think I can write as well as Weiseltier but I find that graphs often explain concepts that you can't understand any other way.

    He insults graphs in general

    Idiotic. This is hardly a insult to the poor graphs: “But Murray’s enterprise collapses, theoretically and morally, long before he gets to his graphs. For the question of the bearing of science on life is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical question. There is not a graph in the world that will explain the place of graphs in the world.”

    I’m certainly not defending Wieseltier. But you’ve got to do better than this idiocy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    How would he explain my failure to express the limitations of my group? Or would it be more appropriate, in the event of psychometric embarrassment, that I stop pretending and start tailoring?

    So the any comparisons between aggregates must apply to me personally response to Damore’s Google memo has precedent: Wieseltier’s Fallacy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  70. @Stephen R. Diamond
    Understanding the bell curve is not substantially a function of spatio-visual ability.
    These sorts of stupid remarks are annoying.

    Sorry to bring out your sharp edges, Mr. Diamond.

    Whether or not interpreting a plot on a Cartesian plane requires spatio-visual ability or not, the point is still valid that Weiselteir’s words-only construction implies the following perspective: That simply being a member of a group whose distribution is centered either high to low must mean that he himself is necessarily high or low in whatever characteristics are measured. That is a (deliberate in his case) misinterpretation of what a bell curve is.

    This is the same lack of understanding that folks over on the left (both of their cohort’s curve and of the political spectrum) seem to have. Weiselteir’s words are not true to the curve, and last I checked, curves, and Cartesian plots, are spatial representations of numerical data.

    Bottom line: Sorry if you don’t like the joke, but the point of it is valid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II
    Agree.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Buzz Mohawk
    Sorry to bring out your sharp edges, Mr. Diamond.

    Whether or not interpreting a plot on a Cartesian plane requires spatio-visual ability or not, the point is still valid that Weiselteir's words-only construction implies the following perspective: That simply being a member of a group whose distribution is centered either high to low must mean that he himself is necessarily high or low in whatever characteristics are measured. That is a (deliberate in his case) misinterpretation of what a bell curve is.

    This is the same lack of understanding that folks over on the left (both of their cohort's curve and of the political spectrum) seem to have. Weiselteir's words are not true to the curve, and last I checked, curves, and Cartesian plots, are spatial representations of numerical data.

    Bottom line: Sorry if you don't like the joke, but the point of it is valid.

    Agree.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @silviosilver

    I think Wieseltier’s problem is all too common among Jewish Liberals. On the one hand, they sincerely do want to be cosmopolitan individualists, ‘citizens of the world’. So, they have a tendency to denigrate any sign of ‘atavistic’ nationalism or anti-intellectual populism.
     
    To his credit, Wieseltier actually managed to walk the walk - he tossed away the yarmulke and married a muslim Pakistani.

    It didn't last, and as outrageous as it sounds, I suppose there is some possibility that he only did it so he could deflect later criticism.

    As an ardent ethnocentrist myself, I've long felt that there is no lie so vile I wouldn't tell it, no act so low I wouldn't stoop to it, if it was a matter of defending my vital racial interests, so the possibility I suggested doesn't strike me as so ridiculous that no one would ever, under any circumstances, contemplate it.

    As an ardent ethnocentrist myself, I’ve long felt that there is no lie so vile I wouldn’t tell it, no act so low I wouldn’t stoop to it, if it was a matter of defending my vital racial interests, so the possibility I suggested doesn’t strike me as so ridiculous that no one would ever, under any circumstances, contemplate it.

    Thanks so much for your admission against interest. What is your ethnicity?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Luke Lea
    The New Republic magazine had been on my family's coffee table for seventy years until I cancelled following Wieseltier's unhinged review of Mel Gibson's The Passion, which reminded me of nothing so much as an anti-Semitic rant. I wrote a letter to Marty Peretz complaining about it.

    Being a Harvard Junior Fellow in literature (I was surprised to learn there was such a thing) really went to Wieseltier's head. As for whether he or Chomsky is the successor to Spinoza, am I the only one who thinks the original is overrated?

    am I the only one who thinks the original is overrated?

    No.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Philip Neal says: • Website

    Imagine if nobody knew how exactly how tall anybody else was: you either had to guess from social cues or administer stature tests. Charles Murray explains to Wieseltier: general stature is a quantity g, a function of Euclidean stature, Riemannian stature and Poincarean stature.

    Don’t panic, Wieseltier, it’s easier than it sounds. You can understand it if you read my book. You’re on the tall side yourself. Yes, I’m taller than you and there’s nothing you can do about it. Don’t worry, OK? On average, white Jews like yourself are the tallest people in the world. That is why they have risen to the social stature of the tallest whites.

    Welcome to our ranks, Wieseltier. Please don’t think that you are all talk and push, Wieseltier. You are genuinely tall by most people’s standards, Wieseltier. Only a few of us are tall enough to look down on you, Wieseltier. No, no, no, it doesn’t all refer to you, Wieseltier…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. EH says:
    @Buzz Mohawk
    You say, "...psychological traits aren’t normally distributed."

    But the abstract you linked says,


    ...individual performance is not normally distributed.
     
    Yes, those of us who have had the misfortune to manage work groups know all about 80/20. This is performance, not "psychological traits."

    The other one linked says,


    ... at many physiological and anatomical levels in the brain, the distribution of numerous parameters is in fact strongly skewed . . .
     
    Okay. The cylinders in the straight-six engine of my BMW lean over to one side, but that doesn't seem to effect the horsepower. This is a physical trait.

    So, what of those "psychological traits"? Like IQ? Granted, it is a kind of performance, one of taking IQ tests, but the results have a normal distribution, and it's not the kind of performance being measured in the study referenced anyway. IQ, by definition, is a "psychological trait," and it has a normal distribution.

    Honestly, I don't know what your point is, but I don't disagree with what you have shown me. I know it's true, but I'm just too far left on your ski jump curve of losers to grasp why you responded to me that way.

    Wieseltier was referring to The Bell Curve, in which results have a normal distribution.

    Actually the distribution of intelligence itself, for which there are better (Rasch) measures than IQ, has a statistical distribution closer to one in which the logarithms of scores are normally distributed rather than the scores themselves. That is a “log-normal” distribution, common in many other traits such as height, which is almost exactly the same as a normal distribution for the middle ~90%, but which has a fatter right tail, meaning there are more high scores than the normal distribution predicts, particularly for very high intelligences, which are orders of magnitude more common than the normal curve predicts. The problem is that IQ scores are by definition normal-curve deviation IQs, measures of the rarity of a level of intelligence in a age-matched reference population and are not in fact measures of intelligence at all, they are “rubber rulers” when used to measure intelligence, the difference in intelligence between IQ 95 and 100 is actually substantially less than the difference between IQ 160 and 170.

    The further out you go the more widely IQs marks are spaced on a true scale of intelligence. (Also, elementary school-age children have much tighter distributions of intelligence than those younger or older, so more closely-spaced marks on their IQ scales.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. According to splenetic Christopher Hitchens, Malcolm Muggeridge got drunk one night and went round to the London flat of Eric Blair’s widow.

    He said he was doing research on the life of George Orwell and wanted to ask her a few questions about her late husband. Well, sir, according to Hitchens, one thing led to another and Muggeridge and the widow wound up in bed together for a quick spot of “How’s Your Father.”

    Hitchens hated Muggeridge with a deep passion. He thought the old goat was a pious fraud. So Hitchens’ story might not be true.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation